Barn Owl, Mick T's "walkout" and artistic integrity are really two separate issues. Assume you haven't "bothered" seeing the Stones since Mick T left or perhaps your idea of artistic integrity is different than that of the band and the majority of their fans.

The fact is that Mick T was NEVER that enthusiastic about playing with the Stones.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-04 14:03 by stonesrule.

stonesrule Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Barn Owl, Mick T's "walkout" and artistic
> integrity are really two separate issues. Assume
> you haven't "bothered" seeing the Stones since
> Mick T left or perhaps your idea of artistic
> integrity is different than that of the band and
> the majority of their fans.
>
> The fact is that Mick T was NEVER that
> enthusiastic about playing with the Stones.


I'm not talking about MT's "walkout" as such; I am merely pointing to the fact that since his departure, the Stones have created hardly anything (artistically or otherwise) that they deem to be worth playing live beyond a year or two from it's release.

I think that smacks of artistic constipation in anyone's book.

>> hardly anything (artistically or otherwise) that they deem to be worth playing live beyond a year or two from its release. <<

sure - if you don't count any of the stuff played beyond a year or two from its release, like for example

Hot Stuff: 76, 77, 94, 02
Fool to Cry: 76, 77, 95, 97, 98, 99
Hand of Fate: 76, 77, 02, 03
Crazy Mama: 77, 97, 98
Melody: 77, 99
Worried About You: 77, 02, 03, 06
Shattered: 78, 79, 81, 82, 89, 94, 95, 99, 02, 05, 06, 07
Miss You: 78, 79, 81, 82, 89, 90, 94, 95, 97, 98, 01 (Mick & Keith), 02, 03, 05, 06, 07
Beast of Burden: 78, 79, 81, 82, 94, 95, 02, 05, 06, 07
Just My Imagination: 78, 79, 81, 82, 95, 97, 99, 06
When the Whip Comes Down: 78, 79, 81, 82, 97, 98, 99, 02, 03
Respectable: 78, 79, 95, 97, 98, 99, 03, 06, 07
Far Away Eyes: 78, 94, 95, 97, 02, 06
She's So Cold: 81, 82, 05, 06, 07
Little T&A: 81, 82, 06, 07
Start Me Up: 81, 82, 89, 90, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 02, 03, 05, 06, 07
Black Limousine: 81, 82, 95
Going to a Go-Go: 81, 82, 02, 03
Neighbours: 81, 82, 02, 03
Harlem Shuffle: 86, 89, 90
Sad Sad Sad: 89, 90, 94, 02
Before They Make Me Run: 89, 90, 94, 95, 99, 02, 03, 06, 07
Rock & a Hard Place: 89, 90, 95, 97, 02
Undercover of the Night: 89, 94, 95, 99, 02, 06
Memory Motel: 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 06
You Got Me Rocking: 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 02, 03, 05, 06, 07
Love Is Strong: 94, 95, 98, 06, 07
Brand New Car: 94, 95, 99, 02
The Worst: 94, 95, 02, 03, 05
Like a Rolling Stone: 95, 97, 98, 99, 02, 03
Slipping Away: 95, 02, 03, 05, 06, 07
Wanna Hold You: 97, 98, 07
All About You: 97, 98, 99
You Don't Have to Mean It: 97, 98, 99, 02, 03
Saint of Me: 97, 98, 99, 03
Out of Control: 97, 98, 99, 03, 05
Thief in the Night: 98, 99, 03
Some Girls: 99, 06, 07
Moon Is Up: 99
Dance: 02, 03
Thru and Thru: 02, 03
She Was Hot: 06, 07
edit: sorry, ABB tracks don't quite meet your 2-year criterion, do they.
we'll count 'em after the next tour. :E

now ... i know there's some way in which none of the above counts, but that's all right -
they're still the Rolling Stones, and we still aren't. :E



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-06 01:09 by with sssoul.

I may be only an owl but this is utterly meaningless drivel!!!

It might look all fine and dandy in print (to idiots) until you look at the number of times that they've actually played these songs following their launch.

And while you're there, how about compiling a list of the songs from the very short period of 1969-1974 and this time please COUNT the number of times that each song has been performed.

I'll be waiting...

I Wish I Never Met You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until someone drops dead they will continue. Rock
> on !!!!!!!!!!!


yep .....torn and frayed

Barn owl has taken trolling to an artform. What is your point?

And who the hell cares about statistics? Any half-assed arguement can be buried underneath reams of numbers.

You already showed your true colors with one statement:

" I am merely pointing to the fact that since his (Taylor's) departure, the Stones have created hardly anything (artistically or otherwise) that they deem to be worth playing live beyond a year or two from it's release."

You're hooting in the wrong tree, bubba. An original thought might help your cause.

i saw that M. Taylor is playing in Zon...then Vegahl.....sounds cool...lol

smile: ahh, Barn Owl's been amending the hypothesis in the night - and no wonder! :E
now are you sure you want to switch to the number of times played rather than performances X years after release?
hint: you might as well just cut straight to "the proof that 'artistic integrity' declined when Mick T left is: i said so"

you know: i'm sorry the Stones haven't played more of ABB more regularly in concert,
but your debating style really needs work. if you're really compelled to wave around farfetched hypotheses,
at least can the name-calling, will ya?

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barn owl has taken trolling to an artform. What
> is your point?
>
> And who the hell cares about statistics? Any
> half-assed arguement can be buried underneath
> reams of numbers.
>
> You already showed your true colors with one
> statement:
>
> " I am merely pointing to the fact that since his
> (Taylor's) departure, the Stones have created
> hardly anything (artistically or otherwise) that
> they deem to be worth playing live beyond a year
> or two from it's release."
>
> You're hooting in the wrong tree, bubba. An
> original thought might help your cause.


Let’s get back to basics then.

The point I am making (as per my earlier posts) is that the Rolling Stones care much more about making money than actually creating (and playing) anything new. The “safety” and lack of adventure in their setlists is just ONE of several other linked strands that underpin this assertion.

If you examine with sssoul’s list (above) of post mid-seventies songs that the band have performed, it is actually quite incredulous how so many have been afforded either a very brief shelf-life, or awarded with a mere occasional cameo appearance. Indeed, out of thirty-three years’ work, there are only three songs that realistically could be classified as warhorses (SMU, Miss You and YGMR).

It can’t be just down to laziness alone can it?

Can it????? Or do you have some original thoughts yourself?

the stones used to be more menacing, but first and foremost theyre about having a good time. I dont think thats changed. and they still rock pretty damn hard if you ask me.

saw a lot of Rockshows in the last 2 years


--But nobody reached the Level of the Rolling stones

They ARE still the no.1

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

"

Charmed Life Video (this is how Mick is using his political capital to grow?)....Keith writing to newspapers about bad reviews.....Las Vegas like setlists.....kids sing along on stage.....private shows to bankers....can we at least "pretend" to be cool? C'mon!"

you maske the terrible mistake of believing this is 1973 and that the stones are therefore still cool.

OLDKR

oldkr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "
>
> Charmed Life Video (this is how Mick is using his
> political capital to grow?)....Keith writing to
> newspapers about bad reviews.....Las Vegas like
> setlists.....kids sing along on stage.....private
> shows to bankers....can we at least "pretend" to
> be cool? C'mon!"
>
> you maske the terrible mistake of believing this
> is 1973 and that the stones are therefore still
> cool.
>
> OLDKR

<<< you make the terrible mistake of believing this is 1973 and that the stones are therefore still cool >>>

Agree. Apart from anything else, there's no one particular definition of "cool" upon which we all agreed, is there ? They were cool in 1973, sure. They're also pretty bloody cool NOW in 2007, it's just for a completely different set of reasons. One such that springs to mind is that the buggers are still here, still performing, and still putting on blistering shows - as anyone that saw the recent clutch of O2 shows will attest to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-05 02:08 by paulywaul.

My advice to you oldkr is go to another site of a band you are still a fan of.

Forget the "Taylor walking out" aspect.

The point is that the core of their setlist is made from pre '75 material.

You don't need to be as wise or as sharp-sighted as a Barn Owl to see that.

Sure you get some additional, occasional titbits (mousey morsels) - but they could equally be (or more likely be?) from pre '75 as from post '75.

Are you all too blind to see?

Love is Strong.

Lucky Stones.

Take away the horns, Chuck, backups and Blondie. Leave Darryl if you must.

See how "hard" they would rock then.

Oh - and if rocking hard is a criterion - nb their best live album (Ya Yas) - it doesn't "rock hard" - that's how they were the best.

Havo wrote:


"saw a lot of Rockshows in the last 2 years


--But nobody reached the Level of the Rolling stones

They ARE still the no.1"


In addition, just two words: BY FAR!...

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blimey, there all out in force today??? What is
> it, the Genisis site down at the mo???
>

Hey tablet, guess which of the pictures below is of a "real" person:

Is it Picture A supposedly taken at Twickenham last year:


Or how about Picture B of your friends Genesis?

lynn1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charmed Life Video (this is how Mick is using his
> political capital to grow?)....Keith writing to
> newspapers about bad reviews.....Las Vegas like
> setlists.....kids sing along on stage.....private
> shows to bankers....can we at least "pretend" to
> be cool? C'mon!
word

Thing is Twit, I was at Twicks last year and had a thoroughly good time? Name the last stones gig u attanded?

god forbid !! when you can do what the Stones do !! ......btw its easy to be a critic , but only those who have been in the arena really know...

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thing is Twit, I was at Twicks last year and had a
> thoroughly good time? Name the last stones gig u
> attanded?


No problem tablet (aka the bitterest pill).

I flew in (literally) for the last two of the O2 shows. Where YOU there?

tat2you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> god forbid !! when you can do what the
> Stones do !! ......btw its easy to be a
> critic , but only those who have been in
> the arena really know...


...it's not gladiators we're talking about for chrissakes!!!

It's a few old goats playing simple three-chord ditties for under two hours (probably in their sleep), in between spending every other waking hour of their day luxuriating in the best possible surroundings and being waited on, hand and foot.

Turning over in bed of a night is probably the hardest part of their entire day.

...unless of course, they get someone in to do that for them as well.

But Barn Owl, be reasonable ........... what about all the long hours they spend rehearsing between shows?

Yes, they were VERY cool in 1973....brash, brazen, life altering etc. But can we at least admit that their most recent behavior is short of graceful. There is a way to be cool later in life too that is different than cool at an earlier age. I just don't find chasing every last top dollar, playing 90% the same songs, writing letters demanding an apology (thereby justifying the idiot), and releasing positively the worst crap ever solo song (this is freakin' Mick Jagger for G-d's sake!) as befitting the greatest rock n roll band ever or that will be....If we cringe at what they do there is a problem because we are the real fans.

"f you examine with sssoul’s list (above) of post mid-seventies songs that the band have performed, it is actually quite incredulous how so many have been afforded either a very brief shelf-life, or awarded with a mere occasional cameo appearance. Indeed, out of thirty-three years’ work, there are only three songs that realistically could be classified as warhorses (SMU, Miss You and YGMR).

It can’t be just down to laziness alone can it?

Can it????? Or do you have some original thoughts yourself?" (Barn Owl)


Me, I have three ideas.

(1) Once you have written aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllll
those incredible songs they did between, say, 1964 and 1971,
you havew to live under your own monstruous song-writing shadow:
that's a fate worse than Death, man.
(2) All the 70s (well, most) are drenched in drug-references - These
lines just dont work out ver well anymore.
(3) They were the greatest band in the world in the 1960s and 70s.
Sure not in the80s. Maybe they have been working their way back up again.

I'm myself a little worried about the Stones' future.
But ya, the Owl man, is a Blind Owl for me.
And ya generally are chasing attention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-09-07 01:08 by Baboon Bro.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Me, I have three ideas.
>
> (1) Once you have written
> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllll
> those incredible songs they did between, say, 1964
> and 1971,
> you havew to live under your own monstruous
> song-writing shadow:
> that's a fate worse than Death, man.
> (2) All the 70s (well, most) are drenched in
> drug-references - These
> lines just dont work out ver well anymore.
> (3) They were the greatest band in the world in
> the 1960s and 70s.
> Sure not in the80s. Maybe they have been working
> their way back up again.
>
> I'm myself a little worried about the Stones'
> future.
> But ya, the Owl man, is a Blind Owl for me.
> And ya generally are chasing attention.

I agree with you on ALL three points Bro, except to argue that they've got a mountain to climb before they work their way to anything like what they were even in say, 1989/90. As for scaling the heights of 1969 - 1973, well they'd have to be reborn in another life.

Great to see that I have your attention. You certainly have mine.